No Oil

I'm imagining a world were perhaps Oil is not discovered and so other methods of producing energy are replied upon, for example Wind Power or Solar energy.

Would this see a shift in the current set up on major powers? Would, for exampe, as my Scandinavian flat mate once sugguested many years ago, places like Norway and Denmark become superpowers?
 
Well we still have coal so who know about cleaniness:D

Electric power give you even less of chance of being a superpower cause it harder to transport it worldwide than oil

and well I'm not sure that never discovering oil is possible

Plus if you have solar power you probably can have central anywwhere
 
If oil is never found, I really don't see this huge shift in power. Coal would of still been king, and that was what ran the British Navy for a good while. Plus in the long run, because of possible expansion of the Coal Engine, the US still becomes a major player. The US has produced a lot of coal over the years. Also energy has to be produced and most power plants around the world are fueled by coal. So overall, coal would of been king, and other then a unimportant middle east, the balance of powers do not change that much if at all.
 
I see no changes pre-1850. After that, lack of oil can cause heavier than IOTL damage to whale population. Then, taking into account that Diesel invented his engine to work on veggie oil and similar stuff, we will see great push toward development of synth diesel fuel from coal (BTW, it always puzzled me why nobody thought of running diesel engines on whale oil in ISOT TL before Islanders got to Land Between Rivers). Process will likely be developed pre-WWI.
 
Thank you. Now all i need to do is go build a time machine and go back in time to when I was in uni and tell myself that Coal would still be king and I can kick his arse around the room and save myself a night of arguing with him. Cheers x
 
I'm imagining a world were perhaps Oil is not discovered and so other methods of producing energy are replied upon, for example Wind Power or Solar energy.

Would this see a shift in the current set up on major powers? Would, for exampe, as my Scandinavian flat mate once sugguested many years ago, places like Norway and Denmark become superpowers?


did he explain how they would become superpowers?:confused: cause i cant see it. Norway would quite likely be in a worse position because they primary export is oil if i am not weary much mistaken
 
well he was Finish anyway and it all happen after a heated debate in the pub about if all the oil ran out now would newer sources of energy be workable and he said that scadinavia, particularly Finland could make use of the fact that they have large areas in their north that are very windy and largely desolate to havest wind energy and that it would give them an advantage over us.

What started it was him saying that if wind power was dominant and there was no oil left then America would be invading Norway right now (as opposed to IRAQ - like i say this was a few years ago), i said why and it went from there.

Why Norway and Denmark, well we argued that due to Finland's own history that they might be an unrealistic superpower in his AH but that perhaps Norway and Denmark. It was completely ill-informed, espcailly on my part as this was not my own partuicualr area of history and i never thought about it until now when i saw an oppotunity to ask yourself and other who might be able to clear up a problem that was niggling me.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Wind Power, and modern Solar Power, are unable to produce more energy than it takes to produce the technologies that it takes to produce them in the first place.

To be able to economically produce an array of windmills powerful enough to provide any significant degree of energy would require a huge carbon investment, (to smelt the metals, to produce the plastics, to translocate these materials, etc.), its just not profitable.

So no oil does not mean a more advanced investment in so-called 'renewable' energies, it means no investment in these energies. Coal would remain supreme, and would end up polluting the earth much more. Eventually, energy resources would run dry and human civilisation would enter an unescapable dark age.
 
Coal would remain supreme, and would end up polluting the earth much more. Eventually, energy resources would run dry and human civilisation would enter an unescapable dark age.

Such a happy ATL that would be.

Now....

What if there were no coal either?
 
Wind Power, and modern Solar Power, are unable to produce more energy than it takes to produce the technologies that it takes to produce them in the first place.

To be able to economically produce an array of windmills powerful enough to provide any significant degree of energy would require a huge carbon investment, (to smelt the metals, to produce the plastics, to translocate these materials, etc.), its just not profitable.

So no oil does not mean a more advanced investment in so-called 'renewable' energies, it means no investment in these energies. Coal would remain supreme, and would end up polluting the earth much more. Eventually, energy resources would run dry and human civilisation would enter an unescapable dark age.

It very well might go nuclear sooner and then you can use electricity to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen then burn the hydrogen.
 
Well maybe with the coal being supreme we can have a steam punk univers :D

You would be ill advise to invade any country that provide you power if it solar or wind as you are much more dependant on the installation for power than with Oil or coal
 
The POD that oil was never discovered, would take place in 9th century Azerbaijan, and there would be no effects until one thousand years later?
 
Wind and solar are not realistic alternative fuels. They could only provide a fraction of global need. And that's with projected advances in wind and solar technology.

Gasoline and diesel can both be made from coal. But this would cost $45 a barrel which although seems cheap now was twice as expensive as historical norms. Without natural crude oil, the steam age would have lasted much longer. In fact we might just be emerging from it.
 
What started it was him saying that if wind power was dominant and there was no oil left then America would be invading Norway right now (as opposed to IRAQ - like i say this was a few years ago), i said why and it went from there.

Why Norway and Denmark, well we argued that due to Finland's own history that they might be an unrealistic superpower in his AH but that perhaps Norway and Denmark. It was completely ill-informed, espcailly on my part as this was not my own partuicualr area of history and i never thought about it until now when i saw an oppotunity to ask yourself and other who might be able to clear up a problem that was niggling me.

Well, Norway is pumping plenty of oil right now, and the USA shows no signs of wanting to invade. Much like most other places that produce oil.

In TTL, I suspect Norway might have done well, perhaps even had a better period during the last century than TL, but due to abundant hydroelectric resources, not wind and solar power.

In fact I am certain solar power would be a non-issue in Scandinavia. Possibly a minor thing in more southern parts of the world.

Wind might have more of a future. Unlike oil wells, the return on investment lasts a longer time. While more expensite to set up in terms of energy spent, wind power would just keep coming in years and decades after an oil well would have run dry.
Finding wind is a lot easier than finding oil. Also, if you did go into wind in a big way, the technologies would improve and marginal costs would drop.

But frankly, I think the big winner would have been nuclear power.

So if we assume increasing energy demands similar to OTL, I think coal would have been pretty mined out by now. The big energy sources would be (in order)

Nuclear power

Hydroelectricity (damming would have been far more ruthless)

Wind, as a distant third

The solar, behind wind again, but possibly with some countries using it quite a bit due to a climate advantage.
 
Last edited:
So no oil does not mean a more advanced investment in so-called 'renewable' energies, it means no investment in these energies. Coal would remain supreme, and would end up polluting the earth much more. Eventually, energy resources would run dry and human civilization would enter an inescapable dark age.
Given that Fuel cells are a 1830's, and solar cells are from the 1880's, and solar powered Steam Turbines from the early 1900's ....
I think whe would find substitutes for Coal.

Given that Oil has been known and used since Biblical times, I think a no Oil TL is impossible.
Now a No Fractional Distillation ,No first Oil Well in 1854 Pennsylvania, etc. is very possible.

All the talk of Oil for Power ignores what oil was used for in the 1800's ... Kerosene:cool:
Rockefeller and Standard Oil made their Millions selling Kerosene for Lamps,
Standard Oil Lights the World- was more than just a Slogan, It was the honest truth.

So no Kerosene, No Gas lights. Whale Oil remains in the upper class homes, Lower class continues with Candles, or Carbide.
More/ Earlier investment in Electric production, more use of Arc Lighting, more investment in other electric lighting,
No post 1850's Investment in Indonesia, more investment in Korea's and the Amur Province Coal Fields.
Japan more interested in Siberia [Coal, Hydro-power] than in China or Indonesia
 
Top